The Effect of Branding on

Consumer Choice
Original Research Report
Dr Jane Leighton - Mountainview Learning
Dr Geoff Bird - University College London

Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 3
Full Report ........................................................................................................................ 4
Background ...................................................................................................................... 4
- Aims ................................................................................................................................. 5
- Attention ........................................................................................................................... 5
- Recognition ...................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6
- Participants ...................................................................................................................... 6
- Stimuli .............................................................................................................................. 6
- Procedure - attention ....................................................................................................... 7
- Procedure - recognition ................................................................................................... 7
Results
i. The impact of reduced branding on consumer choice .................................................. 8
ii. The impact of increased non-branded information on consumer choice ..................... 11
iii. The impact of copycat branding on consumer choice ................................................. 13
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 1 - Questionnaire data ................................................................................. 19
Appendix 2 - Stimuli ...................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 3 - Methodological details ........................................................................... 23
Appendix 4 - Why use these methodologies .............................................................. 25
References ..................................................................................................................... 27

Executive Summary
Branding on packaging acts as an important cue to guide consumer choice in the retail
environment. From a psychological perspective, branding on packaging serves two
important purposes, crucial to decision making:
1) It guides consumers attention, drawing attention to certain brands.
2) It allows consumers to recognise and find familiar brands.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact branding has on these
processes, and therefore consumer choice. The role of branding was examined in three
specific areas:
i. The impact of reduced branding on consumer choice. When branding on packaging is
reduced, how does this influence decision making?
ii. The impact of increased non-branded information on consumer choice. What effect
does non-branded information, such as nutritional information, have on decisions?
iii. The impact of copycat branding on consumer choice. When a brand is perceptually
similar to another, well established brand, how does this effect decision making?
In order to answer these questions, eye tracking and visual search tasks were employed to
measure attention and recognition, in a scientifically validated and rigorous manner. Key
findings are described below:
i. The impact of reduced branding on consumer choice
The results demonstrated that reducing the branding on packaging can influence
consumer behaviour, by reducing attention to and recognition of certain brands. Strong
evidence from the recognition data suggested that reducing the size of a logo on
packaging impairs consumers ability to recognise and find a brand they are looking for.
This effect was particularly pronounced when the changes to the logo size are large.
ii. The impact of increased non-branded information on consumer choice.
Both the eye tracking and recognition data provided some tentative evidence that
increasing the size of nutritional labels displayed on packaging may influence consumer
behaviour, by increasing attention to but reducing recognition of certain brands. However,
the observed effects were not statistically reliable, indicating that the impact of nutritional
information may not be significant.
iii. The impact of copycat branding on consumer choice.
Strong evidence from the recognition data suggested that copycat branding can influence
consumer choice; the results demonstrated the impact of perceptually similar (copycat)
brands on an established brand. In cases where an established brand was displayed
alongside a copycat supermarket brand, participants were slower and more inaccurate in
identifying the established brand. This was compared to cases where the established
brand was displayed alongside a non-copy supermarket brand. These robust results
suggest that the presence of a copycat brand may distract or confuse consumers,
impairing their ability to find the brand they are looking for, and in some cases causing
them to choose the wrong brand.
The findings from this study have wide implications, since they provide both evidence for
the important role of branding on decision making as well as a robust scientific method for
measuring these effects.

Full Report
Background
In todays cluttered retail environment, consumers are overwhelmed with choice. The
average UK supermarket carries approximately 45 000 SKUs. The average shopper buys
around 50 items in 50 minutes. Consumers must therefore weigh up around 900 items
each minute. However, consumers arent even able to attend to all of the items on display,
let alone weigh up all of the available options; they must decide what to buy in the blink of
an eye.
In order to make such fast decisions, consumers need to use mental shortcuts, or
heuristics, to guide their choices. Certain cues present in the environment guide shoppers
attention and aid their decision making in store. Often consumers are not conscious of the
cues or the mental shortcuts they have used to arrive at a decision.
Perhaps the most powerful mental shortcut available to the consumer is branding.
Branding on packaging allows us to quickly and efficiently select from a huge array of
products. Specifically, branding draws consumers attention to certain products; it allows
them to recognise familiar products and serves as a cue for retrieving stored information
from memory about those products. Understanding this important role of branding in
decision making is the broad aim of the current research. This research is particularly
timely for two reasons.
First, recent developments in the brain and behavioural sciences have expanded our
understanding of how the brain takes in and stores information, and how we make
decisions. We now understand just how much information processing and decision making
takes place below consciousness. We also have the means by which to examine these
unconscious processes. While in the past, researchers relied on asking consumers
opinions, we can now make the deep dive to examine the decision making processes, that
consumers are not even aware of. This scientific knowledge and the rigorous
methodologies have only just begun to be applied in the consumer context. However, they
have a great deal to offer in understanding how consumers choose between brands.
Second, a greater understanding of the effects of branding on consumer choice is
particularly pertinent in light of current public policy and legal considerations. With
restrictions on cigarette branding imminent and stricter regulations in other categories
likely, brand owners are keen to understand how these changes will impact consumer
choice and ultimately sales. Aside from this legislation, brand owners face a further threat,
that is, copycat branding. By using branding that is similar to a another well established
brand, it is possible that copycat brands enjoy an unfair advantage. However, it is not yet
understood whether and how copycat branding works to influence consumer choice.
This research aims to investigate the role of branding using rigorous scientific techniques,
underpinned by an understanding of human decision making. The research was
undertaken in the context of branding on packaged goods in the retail context.

Aims
The aims of the current research are to examine the role of branding on decision making in
three specific areas. These three areas form the three parts of this study.
i. The impact of reduced branding on consumer choice. When branding on packaging is
reduced, how does this influence decision making?
ii. The impact of increased non-branded information on consumer choice. What effect
does non-branded information, such as nutritional information, have on decision
making?
iii. The impact of copycat branding on consumer choice. When a brand is perceptually
similar to another, well established brand, how does this effect decision making?
In order to fully understand consumer choice, it is necessary to understand the underlying
psychological mechanisms that guide those choices, that is the conscious and
unconscious factors that influence decision making. Different types of branding practices
can effect consumers choices in a number of different ways. First, branding can influence
whether consumers notice a product or not, that is, how much attention is paid to a
product. Second, branding can influence whether and how quickly consumers recognise a
product. This recognition and subsequent memory retrieval then have a knock-on effect on
how consumers feel about that product. These areas, attention and recognition, are crucial
predictors of decision making. By understanding the impact branding has on these
processes, we will be able to reveal how branding works to guide purchase decisions.
Attention
The role of attention in guiding consumer decisions is often overlooked. However, it is
arguably one of the best predictors of consumer choice. If a product does not receive at
least some attention, it is very unlikely to be chosen - the old adage is true - unseen is
unsold.
It is estimated that we do not pay any attention to nearly half of the available brands during
purchase consideration (Russo et al, 1994). Most products only get a quick cursory
glance, and only a privileged few really hold our attention. Research shows that the more
attention a product receives, the more likely it is to be chosen (Chandon et al, 2002).
Given the importance of attention on consumer choice, it is important to understand how
branding influences attention. Attention can be measured very accurately using eye
tracking technology. Eye tracking provides a measurement of which elements in an array
receive attention and for how long. Because it is a measure of actual behaviour, which is
not subject to conscious control, it is very accurate at establishing attention towards, and
preference for, brands.
Recognition
Branding ultimately works as a signal. It allows consumers to quickly recognise a product
as one they are familiar with or one they like. It acts as a memory cue, allowing consumers
to retrieve relevant information from memory. This information may be about past
experience of the brand, brand perceptions or brand associations. The information we

have stored about brands is crucial in guiding our decisions. Brands that are recognised
more quickly and easily are liked more and ultimately chosen more (Reber et al, 1998,
Winkielman et al, 2000).
Branding on packaging facilitates these memory processes, giving consumers the
information they need quickly and efficiently. The speed with which consumers can find
and recognise products is crucial in determining their decisions. A wealth of research on
processing fluency suggests items that come to mind quickly and easily are liked more
and perceived to be of higher value (Reber et al, 1998, Winkielman et al, 2000).
Brand memory, or recognition can be measured with a high degree of accuracy using
speeded response, visual search procedures. This test requires participants to search for
an item within a display and make a physical response as fast as possible. By recording
both accuracy and response time, the technique is a highly sensitive measure of
recognition; it measures automatic behaviour, which is not likely to be under conscious
control and thus avoids many of the pitfalls of traditional consumer research. In short, this
method, and the one described to measure attention, are able to measure what
consumers actually do, rather than what they say they do.
Methodology
We investigated the impact of branding on packaging within the retail context by using labbased, computerised tasks. The experiments, designed and run to academic standards,
were conducted in the Multimodal Laboratory in The Department of Cognitive, Perceptual
and Brain Sciences at University College London, in collaboration with Dr. Geoff Bird.
In order to measure the effects of branding for parts i and ii, we manipulated certain
elements displayed on packaging. Branding can encompass a wide range of features,
such as colour, logo and type face. Similarly, the non-branded information displayed on
packaging can take a number of forms. However, in order to reduce the number of
variables that were manipulated and therefore make the results more interpretable and
reliable, we manipulated the size of the logo for part i and the size of the nutritional label
for part ii.
Participants
Data were collected from 35 participants (18 female, mean age 36 years). Research has
shown that sample sizes of 20-30 are sufficient for robust results in eye tracking (Think
Eyetracking research, 2008) and visual search experiments (Zaltman, 2011).
Stimuli
Stimuli comprised high resolution photographs of product packaging. In order to answer
our specific questions, some of the photographs were manipulated to change the size of
the logos or nutritional information displayed on the packaging. Further details of the
stimuli are provided in Appendix 2. Products from eight categories were included in this
study. Each category contained a test product and five control products. Participants

observed the product photographs displayed in an array, displayed around the central
fixation point on the screen. The position of the products in the display was rotated across
trials to eliminate possible location effects.
Apparatus
Participants were seated facing an LCD screen. For eye movement measurement, a
Bobax3000 remote eye tracker was mounted at the base of the display, consisting of a
camera focusing on the participants eye and a set of LED illuminators. Gaze position was
calculated approximately 200 times a second. For response time measurement,
participants responded by using a mouse-click to select the key product.
This study employed two main techniques to measure attention and recognition. The
experimental procedures for each of the techniques will be outlined below.
Procedure - attention
Eye tracking was employed to measure attention in a passive observation task. In this
task, participants observed a sequence of images, each displaying an array of products.
Images were displayed for 200 milliseconds and each image was followed by a blank
screen, with a central fixation point, which was shown for 50 milliseconds. Each image was
displayed ten times and the images were displayed in a random order. During this time eye
movements were recorded to calculate participants fixation latency. This is a measure of
how long the participants spends looking at each element in the display.
Procedure - recognition
Recognition was measured using a visual search task. In this task, participants were
shown the same array of products as in the procedure above but they were asked to
identify a key brand from the array. Specifically, participants were shown a screen which
displayed the name of the key brand in the centre on the screen. They were asked to click
on this central point when they were ready. At this point they were shown the array of
products from which they had to identify the key brand. Participants were instructed to use
the mouse to point to and click on the key brand as quickly as possible. Each image was
displayed ten times and the images were displayed in a random order. Both speed and
accuracy of recognition were recorded.
Results
There were three main areas of interest in this study:
i. The impact of reduced branding on consumer choice.
ii. The impact of increased non-branded information on consumer choice.
iii. The impact of copycat branding on consumer choice.
The results from each of these areas will be summarised below.

i. What is the impact of reduced branding on packaging?

In order to understand the impact of reduced branding on packaging, we manipulated the
size of branded elements displayed on packaging. We then investigated the impact of
those manipulations on attention and recognition. Specifically, the size of the logo (or
logotype) was reduced by 75% and 50%. Examples of the stimuli used in this study can be
found in Appendix 2.
Products from five categories were included in the study: biscuits, gravy, crisps, fizzy
drinks and butter. Five products from each category were included.
Table 1 below shows the brands used in this experiment
Category

Key Brand

Filler brands

Crisps

Walkers

Brannigans, Hula Hoops, French Fries

Butter

I cant believe its not butter

Clover, Anchor, Benecol, Flora

Gravy

Bisto

Maggi, Knorr, Sainsburys gravy, Paxo

Biscuits

Jaffa Cakes

Kit Kat, Rocky, Foxs, Hobnobs

Drinks

Coca Cola

Pepsi, 7up, Dr Pepper, R Whites

In this experiment, there were three conditions:

Condition 1: Size of logo 100% (original image)
Condition 2: Size of logo 75%
Condition 3: Size of logo 50%
Attention
The aim of this part of study was to investigate the impact of logo size on attention. We
therefore analysed how look duration varied as a function of logo size.
Look duration
The graph below shows the average look duration across the three conditions. When the
size of the logo was decreased, participants payed less attention to the brand. However,
this was only the case for the larger reduction in size.

!""#$%&'()"*$+,-.$

!"'#
!"&#
!"%#
!""#
!"$#
!"!#
())*#

&"*#

")*#

!"/"$0123$

Statistical analyses of the look duration data showed that there were no significant effects
of condition. This suggests that the relationship between the size of the logo and attention
is only weak.
Recognition
The aim of this part of study was to investigate the impact of logo size on recognition. We
therefore analysed how response time 1 varied as a function of logo size.
Response time
The graph below shows the average reaction times across the three conditions. When the
size of the logo was decreased, participants were slower to recognise the key brand.

Participants did not make enough errors to allow any meaningful analysis of accuracy

Statistical analyses of the reaction time data showed a significant main effect of condition
(p > 0.001), suggesting a strong impact of logo size on brand recognition. Simple effects
analyses reveal that only condition 3, the 50% reduction in logo size, differs significantly
from the original image (condition 1), suggesting that it is only when the logo is reduced by
a significant amount that brand recognition is effected.
Summary
These data suggest that reducing branding on packaging could have a detrimental effect
on consumers attention towards and ability to recognise brands. The robust and highly
statistically significant findings in the recognition data suggest that this detrimental effect
has a particularly strong effect on consumers ability to recognise and find brands they are
looking for.
Both the attention data and recognition data suggest that this effect is particularly
pronounced when there is a large reduction in logo size. Small changes in logo size may
not influence consumer behaviour significantly.

10

ii. What is the impact of increased non-branded information on packaging?

In order to understand the impact of increased non-branded information on packaging, we
manipulated the size of the nutritional information displayed on packaging. We then
investigated the impact of those manipulations on attention and recognition. Specifically,
the size of the nutritional label was increased by 150% and 200%. Examples of the stimuli
used in this study can be found in Appendix 2.
Products from five categories were included in the study: biscuits, gravy, crisps, fizzy
drinks and butter. Five products from each category were included. Table 1, above, shows
the brands used in this experiment.
In this experiment, there were three conditions:
Condition 1: Size of nutritional information 100% (original image)
Condition 2: Size of nutritional information 150%
Condition 3: Size of nutritional information 200%
Attention
The aim of this part of study was to investigate the impact of nutritional label on attention.
We therefore analysed how look duration varied as a function of the size of the nutritional
label.
Look duration
The graph below shows the average look duration across the three conditions. When the
size of the nutritional information was increased, participants payed more attention to the
brand.

!""#$%&'()"*$+,-.$

!'($

!"&$

!"%$

!"#$
)((*$

)"(*$

+((*$

/&0'1)"*(2$1*3"',()"*$-145$

Statistical analyses of the look duration data showed that there were no significant effects
of condition. This suggests that the relationship between the size of the nutritional
information and attention is only weak.

11

Recognition
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the size of the nutritional information
on recognition. We therefore analysed how response time 2 varied as a function of
nutritional information size.
Response time
The graph below shows the average reaction times across the three conditions. When the
size of the logo was increased, participants were slower to recognise the key brand.

Statistical analyses of the rt data showed that there were no significant effects of condition.
This suggests that the relationship between the size of the nutritional information and
recognition is only weak.
Summary
These results suggest that altering the amount of non-branded information included on
packaging may only have a small effect on consumers recognition of brands. Some
tentative evidence suggests that they may pay more attention to brands when the
nutritional labels are larger, but that this may then impair their ability to recognise the
brand. This could be because they are focusing on the nutritional information rather than
the brand elements used to identify and recognise brand. However, the results from this
study are not conclusive due to the weak statistical effect.

Participants did not make enough errors to allow any meaningful analysis of accuracy

12

iii. What is the impact of copycat branding?

In order to understand the impact of copycat branding, we investigated the impact of
perceptually similar (copycat) brands on established brands.
This was in order to answer some of the following questions: Do established brands suffer
as a result of copycat brands? Does the presence of a copycat brand draw attention away
from the established brand (and towards the copycat brand). Does the presence of a
copycat brand impair peoples ability to find the established brand theyre looking for?
Does the presence of a copycat brand result in people mistakenly selecting the wrong
brand?
We compared cases where an established brand was displayed alongside a copycat
supermarket brand with cases where the established brand was displayed alongside
brands that were not perceptually similar. The goal of this study was to measure the
impact of a copycat brand on consumers attention towards and ability to recognise the
established brand.
Stimuli
Products from five categories were included in the study: shampoo, toothpaste,
dishwasher tablets, energy drinks and butter. Each category included the key brand, a
copycat brand, a supermarket own brand that was not a copycat and four filler brands from
within the category. Specifically, in one third of trials, participants saw the key (established)
brand, a private label brand that is perceptually similar to the key brand and three filler
brands. In one third of trials participants saw the key brand, a private label brand that is not
perceptually similar to the key brand and three filler brands. In the remaining trials,
participants saw the key brand and four filler brands, from within the category. Examples of
the stimuli used in this study can be found in Appendix 2.
In this experiment, there were three conditions:
Condition 1: Key brand and four filler brands
Condition 2: Key brand plus copycat brand, and three filler brands
Condition 3: Key brand plus non copy brand, and three filler brands

13

Table 2 below shows the brands used in this experiment

Category

Key Brand

Copycat
supermarket
brand

Non copy
supermarket
brand

Filler brands

Toothpaste

Sensodyne

Tesco Pro-tech

Superdrug
Sensitive

Colgate,
Macleans, Oral B,
Arm & Hammer

Butter

I cant believe
its not butter

Asda Youd
butter believe
it

Sainsburys
Butterlicious

Clover, Anchor,
Benecol, Flora

Shampoo

Head &
Shoulders

Boots anti
dandruff

Waitrose
Protect

Pantene, VO5,
Herbal Essenses,
Tresemme

Dishwasher
tablets

Finish

Clean & Fresh

Waitrose 5 in
1

Fairy, Daisy,
Ecover, Planet
Clean

Energy drinks

Red Bull

Asda Blue
Charge

Emerge

Alibi, Monster,
Mountain Dew,
Lucozade

Attention
The goal of this part of the study was to investigate whether the presence of a copycat
brand influenced participants attention towards the key brand. We therefore analysed
differences in looking duration across each of the three conditions. The eye tracking data
yielded no meaningful patterns and no significant findings. This suggests that the presence
of a copycat brand does not influence attention towards an established brand.
Recognition
The goal of this study was to investigate whether the presence of a copycat brand
influenced participants recognition of the key brand. For example, if they were asked to
find Red Bull, were they slower to do so when the Asda copycat brand, Blue Charge,
was present (condition 2), than when brands that were not perceptually similar were
present (conditions 1 and 3).
We therefore analysed differences in response times (rt) and accuracy (errors) across
each of the three conditions.

14

Accuracy
The graph below shows the average percentage of errors made by participants across the
three conditions. Participants were more likely to make an error when a copycat brand was
present, than in either of the other two conditions.

These results suggest that in some cases, participants were choosing the copycat brand
because they had mistaken it for the key brand.
Response time
The graph below shows the average reaction times across the three conditions.
Participants were slower to identify the key brand when a copycat brand was present, than
in either of the other two conditions.

15

Statistical analyses of the rt data showed a significant main effect of condition (p > 0.001).
This suggests that reaction times vary depending on the presence of a copycat brand.
Further analyses revealed that this effect was driven by significant differences between
conditions 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, but no significant difference between 1 and 3.
Therefore, when a copycat supermarket brand is present, participants are slower to
recognise the key brand. However, there is no difference in brand recognition when a non
copy supermarket brand is present. This suggests that the effect is driven by the
perceptual similarity of the copycat brand to the established brand.
These results suggest that, in general, the presence of a copycat brand acts as a
distractor, which hinders participants ability to recognise the key brand.
Summary
The results from this study provide strong evidence that copycat brands, that is, brands
that are perceptually similar to other established brands, influence brand recognition. They
can cause consumers to make errors, mistakenly selecting the copycat brand in place of
the established brands. Furthermore, they slow down recognition of key brands.
It is possible that this slowing of recognition is indicative of confusion between the
perceptually similar brands. What these results do indicate is that the presence of a
copycat brand, has a detrimental effect on the established brand that it has copied.

16

Conclusions
The key findings from this research demonstrate the important effects branding has on
consumer attention and memory. Given the significance of these psychological processes
in decision making and consumer behaviour, the results from this study could have far
reaching implications for brand owners, policy makers and legal professionals.
The most reliable findings concern the amount of branding on packaging and the impact of
copycat branding. The findings on nutritional labelling are less conclusive and should be
subject to further investigation before firm conclusions are drawn.
Strong evidence suggests that reducing the branded elements displayed on packaging
has a detrimental effect on consumers ability to find and choose the brands they are
looking for. The effect is particularly pronounced for large changes in logo size. This
suggests that small branding changes may not be too much of a problem for consumers
and brand owners; however, large reductions in logo size, or complete elimination of a
logo from the packaging is likely to have important negative consequences. Future
research, looking at cases where the logo has been completely removed is necessary to
quantify these consequences.
In many ways, the findings from this part of the study are not surprising, since it is likely
that consumers use branded elements, such as logos, to find the brand they are looking
for. What this study demonstrates, for the first time, is that this effect is reliably measurable
and quantifiable.
Further robust evidence suggests that copycat branding has a strong detrimental effect on
consumers ability to find and choose the brands they are looking for. Copycat brands slow
down brand recognition and can even cause consumers to make errors, mistakenly
selecting the copycat brand in place of the brand they are looking for. It is possible that
these effects are indicative of confusion between perceptually similar brands.
These findings have important implications for brand owners. First, they demonstrate and
quantify the negative effect that copycat brands could have on their brands. By slowing
down consumers and causing them to choose the wrong brand, copycat brands reduce
the likelihood of an established brand being found and ultimately chosen, thus potentially
impacting sales. Second, this study demonstrates, for the first time, a way to reliably
measure the effect a copycat brand is having on the established brand.
The strongest evidence from this study arose from the recognition task. The visual search
task employed in this research is a relatively simple and cheap procedure to implement. It
is therefore possible that this measure could be used in the future to examine specific
cases of copycat branding and the impact of that branding on established brands.
The results from this study highlights the need for further research that is underpinned by
an understanding of human decision making processes. This approach has a wide range
of potential applications; it could be used to understand the impact of packaging changes
or re-branding; it could be used to understand which branded elements are most crucial in
guiding consumer attention and recognition; it could also be used to examine where

17

products should be placed in store or what point of sale material should be included. Using
techniques that tap into actual behaviour unlocks a huge potential to learn about consumer
decision making; it is hoped that this research will encourage many further studies in this
area.
The results gathered in this original research will now be considered within the broader
legal and policy context. This research therefore represents an important step in
demonstrating and safeguarding the crucial role that branding plays in guiding consumer
behaviour.

18

Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Data

Questionnaire data were collected alongside the attention and recognition data. This step
was mostly exploratory, since it was expected that explicit questions would not be sensitive
enough to capture consumers reactions to branding changes or copycat branding (see
Appendix 4 for further discussion). We believe that branding cues work on consumer
attention and memory, processes which are not usually subject to conscious control or
awareness. Therefore self report or questionnaire measures are not the most appropriate
measures in this case.
Data were collected from the same participants as the main study. The questionnaires
were administered at the end of the experiment. The questionnaires focused on two areas,
purchase intent and brand liking. These were measured using the following questions:
How likely would you be to purchase Brand A?
Very Likely
Likely
Neutral
Unlikely
Very Unlikely
How do you feel about Brand A?
Strongly Like
Like
Neutral
Dislike
Strongly Dislike
Results for each part of the study are summarised below.
i. What is the impact of reduced branding on packaging?
In order to assess the impact of reduced branding on consumer attitude, consumers were
asked to rate the key brands whilst being shown images of the original packaging, and
then whilst shown images of the packaging with reduced logos. In the reduced logo
condition, they were shown the image of the logos at 50% or the original size. The graph
below shows the purchase intent and liking scores for the original images compared to the
reduced logo size images, averaged across all the key brands. The data show a small
decrease in purchase intent and liking when the images had smaller logos. This difference
was not statistically significant.

19

&#$"

!"#$%&#'()*$#'

&"
%#$"
6)3530,7"
8.9(*.9"7:5:"

%"
!#$"
!"
'()*+,-."/01.01"

234305"

These results provide tentative support for the earlier findings that reducing the size of the
branding on packaging has a detrimental effect on consumer choice.
ii. What is the impact of increased non-branded information on packaging?
In order to assess the impact of increased non-branded information on consumer attitude,
consumers were asked to rate the key brands whilst being shown images of the original
packaging, and then whilst seeing images of the packaging with increased nutritional
labels. In the increased label condition, they were shown the image of the logos at 200%
of the original size.
The data did not show any difference between the conditions for either purchase intent or
liking.
iii. What is the impact of copycat branding?
In order to assess the impact of copy branding, participants were asked to rate a key
brand both when it was placed next to a copycat supermarket brand and when placed next
to a non-copy supermarket brand. This was to measure whether the presence of a
perceptually similar could impact consumer attitudes towards an established brand.
Participants were also asked to rate the supermarket brands.
The graphs below show the purchase intent and liking data. There is no difference
between the scores for the key brand when it is placed next to a copycat and when it is
placed next to a non copycat product. Interestingly, there is a difference between the key
brand and the copycat brand on both metrics, suggesting that participants do no confuse
the two at this explicit level, where they have time to make a decision.

20

!"#$%&#'()$*+%,#'-./#./',*0$#'

&#$"
&"
%#$"
%"
!#$"
!"
'()"*+,-."/"012)" '()"*+,-."/"-1-"
012)"

312)"

41-"012)"

()*"+,-./"0"123*" ()*"+,-./"0".2."
123*"

423*"

52."123*"

'"

!"#$%&#'()*)+&',-.$#'

&#$"
&"
%#$"
%"
!#$"
!"

The results from this part of the study are not able to shed much light on the issues
addressed in this report. It is likely that explicit questionnaires are not sensitive enough to
pick up on influences on decision making, especially when these influence are largely
below the level of conscious awareness.

21

Appendix 2 - Stimuli
Example stimuli for each part of this study are depicted below.
Part i. Size of logo manipulations
Logo size: 100%

Logo size: 75%

Logo size: 50%

Part ii. Size of nutritional information manipulations

Label size: 100%

Label size: 150%

Label size: 200%

Part iii. Copycat and non copycat brands

Key Brand

Copy supermarket brand

Non copy supermarket

brand

22

Appendix 3 - Methodological details

Attention - Eye tracking
Eye movements can be divided into fixations, during which the eye remains relatively still
for about 200-300 ms, and saccades, rapid movements that cover on average 3-5
(degrees of visual angle) in distance and last about 40-50 ms. Very little processing occurs
during saccades, while fixations are associated with perceptual and cognitive processing
of the fixated stimuli. The eye and brain mainly process information that is located in the
centre of the visual field (Wedel and Pieters, 2007). This information is firstly picked up by
photoreceptors (called cones) located in the fovea, the central and most sensitive part of
the retina. Stimuli that fall outside this central area are processed by different
photoreceptors (called rhodes) in far less details. Therefore, eye movements can be
considered a real-time index of visual attention and cognition (Rayner, 1998), and in
particular the latency, length, and frequency of fixations can tell us a lot about how quickly
attention was engaged and how extensively the fixated stimulus has been processed.
Fixation duration
The time the eyes spend dwelling on a specific stimulus corresponds to the amount of time
that was spent processing this stimulus. A number of studies have shown that this
measure is correlated with liking, preference, consumer brand choice (Chandon et al,
2002) and sales (Treistman and Gregg, 1979).
How it works
The technology that allows for the collection of the above mentioned measures is relatively
simple and inexpensive (Wedel and Pieters, 2007). Standard equipment is composed by
an infra-red camera that picks up the reflection of the cornea and the centre of the pupil.
Once the camera is calibrated (i.e. has learned which reflection/pupil pattern corresponds
to a fixation in which position of the visual field), it can track with great precision the
movements of the eye in the visual field. Different eye trackers have different sampling
rates (the current maximum is 2000 Hz, which corresponds to two measurements taken
each millisecond), accuracy (an excellent accuracy being around 0.25) and resolution (an
excellent resolution being of 0.05).
Lab experiments
The most precise measurements are taken in lab situation where the participants sits still
in front of a screen. This type of eye tracking is ideal for addressing questions such as
which brand attracts more attention? or which packaging attracts consumers
attention?.
Real life experiments
Eye trackers can also be mounted on the head of the participants or can be integrated in
goggles, so that participants can act in the real environment while their eyes are being
tracked. This can provide insights into how shoppers navigate a category and how they

23

respond to point-of-sale material (Sorensen, 2009) or can be used to investigate how

consumers interact with marketing communications in the real world. However, the
limitations of this methodology are often overlooked. First, it should be noted that the
accuracy of the measurement is extremely low as compared to that obtained in lab
experiments. The experimenter does not have any control over the stimuli the participant
will be exposed to. A video reproducing the visual field of the participant and an estimation
of the point of fixation only provides rough indications about the attentional path of the
consumer. Second, consumers can be recruited and asked to behave as they usually
would (Sorensen, 2009), however, their behaviour is likely to be influenced by the mere
fact of knowing they are being observed. Biases similar to those associated with all other
methods (social desirability, to mention just one) can operate in this context as well. Third,
because of the extremely high amount of noise contaminating data collected in the store
environment, only one third of the participants tested typically provide usable data (Jesper,
2007). This means that collecting this kind of data can be inefficient and costly.
Recognition - Visual Search
Visual search is a type of perceptual task that involves an active scan of the visual
environment for a particular object or feature among other objects or features. It provides a
measure of how easily and quickly participants can identify or recognise an object.
In visual search tasks, participants are instructed to find a particular object from an array.
Visual search tasks are typically conducted as speeded response procedures, where
participants are asked to respond as quickly as possible. In this way, it is possible to
measure their automatic reactions.
Participants responses can be measured in a number of different ways. Eye fixation
latency can be used to measure how long it takes the eyes to fixate on the correct object.
Alternatively, participants are instructed to make a physical response (e.g. clicking a
mouse or touching a screen) when they have identified the stimulus. This technique allows
measurement of both accuracy and speed of recognition. Because of the ability to
measure both accuracy and response latency, visual search tasks can provide a highly
sensitive measure of recognition.
In the retail context, visual search can be a very useful tool as it provides an indication of
how quickly consumers can identify a particular product. It can be used to investigate
product placement and has very important applications when evaluating the impact of
packaging changes. Product identification and recognition are very important metrics
relating to decision making. A wealth of evidence and research into perceptual fluency
suggests that those products that are easy to identify are more likely to be selected (e.g.
Zajonc, 1968, Lee, 2001, Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).

24

Appendix 4 - Why use these methodologies?

The majority of research carried out in the area of consumer decision making has used
self report measures. While this method offers some valuable indications about the
process that leads to purchase decisions, a number of important limiting factors should be
considered.
First, when customers answer the researchers direct and explicit questions, a number of
non-voluntary biases, such as deviant, careless and consistent responding, or
acquiescence (tendency to agree), can contaminate their responses. In other words,
answers can be contaminated by the consumers own theories about their behaviour, by
their motivation to be original/clever, by their desire to not waste too much time filling in to
the questionnaire, by their need to be consistent across different statements and, last but
not least, by a tendency to agree with the researcher (Paulhus, 1991).
Second, consumers might voluntarily provide an inaccurate answer with the goal of
conforming with their perceived expectations from society (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004;
Fisher, 1993), for instance people might not like to admit that they always go for the
cheaper option for fear of appearing poor or mean. This phenomenon is called social
desirability bias.
Third, even assuming that a well designed questionnaire was able to extract from the
consumer what they actually believe they would feel and think in a specific situation, this
information would not be as valuable as it seems; people are often unaware their own
feelings and thoughts (Damasio, 2000) and they are not good at predicting their future
behaviour (Webb, 2006).
A large body of evidence suggests that consumers have far less control, and awareness,
over their decisions than previously assumed. In order to further understand those
decision making processes, it is therefore imperative to go further than simply asking
consumers what they prefer, what they would choose and why.
In order to overcome the problems highlighted above, the present research focused on the
underlying psychological processes that underpin our decisions. Decades of research in
the brain and behavioural sciences have provided a window into these processes and we
now have tried and tested techniques to measure these processes with a high degree of
accuracy.
To overcome the problems with self report, scientists use various implicit response
measures such as eye tracking and response latency (response time). These can reveal
what consumers actually believe or think and how they actually behave, as they measure
unconscious physical reactions.
Eye tracking measures actual behaviour and does therefore not suffer from the self-report
bias of questionnaires. Additionally, eye movements are a type of behaviour that is not
under strong voluntary control (Munoz & Everling, 2004). This is very important because it
protects the measurements from the self-report biases listed above. The gaze is directed
in an automatic way to whatever attracted the viewers attention (Corbetta et al, 1998).

25

This means that eye tracking can provide an extremely accurate measure of which
elements within an array attract attention.
Similarly, response latency measures can also measure automatic behaviour and this type
of response is also not likely to be under voluntary control. Speeded response procedures,
where participants are under time pressure to respond, force them to make automatic
responses, based on instinctive reactions. Furthermore, by measuring both accuracy and
response time, we are able to measure consumers recognition with a high degree of
sensitivity.

26

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Gorkan Ahmetoglu and Daniel Richardson for their
valuable contribution to this research.
References
Chandon, P., J. Wesley Hutchinson, W. & Young, S. (2002). Unseen is unsold: Assessing
visual equity with commercial eye-tracking data. Working paper no. 2002/ 85/MKT,
Fontainebleu: INSEAD.
Corbetta, M., Akbudak, E., Conturo, T.E., Snyder, A.Z., Ollinger, J.M., Drury, H.A.,
Linenweber, M.R., Petersen, S.E., Reichle, M.E., Van Essen, D.C., & Shulman, G. (1998).
A common network of functional areas for attention and eye movements. Neuron, 21,
736-773.
Jesper, C. (2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment
on the visual influence of packaging design. Journal of Marketing Management, 23,
917-928.
Munoz, D.P., & Everling, S. (2004). Look away; the anti-saccade task and the voluntary
control of eye movement. Nature Reviews, 5, 218-228.
Lee, A. Y. (2001), The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation
Revisited, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1255-1266.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of
Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Russo, J., Edwards, J. & Leclerc, F. (1994). An eye-fixation analysis of choice processes
for consumer nondurables. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 274-290.
Sorensen, H. (2009) Inside the mind of the shopper: The science of retailing. Wharton
School Publishing
Think Eyetracking research (2008). http://thinkeyetracking.com/Blog/?p=8
Treistman, J., & Gregg, J. P. (1979). Visual, verbal, and sales responses to print ads.
Journal of Advertising Research, 19(4), 41-47.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and
probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
Wedel, M. & Pieters, F.G.M. (2007). A Review of Eye-Tracking Applications in Marketing,
Review of Marketing Research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

27

Winkielman P., Schwarz N., Reber R., and Fazendeiro T. A. (2000) Affective and Cognitive
Consequences of Visual Fluency: When Seeing is Easy on the Mind. In: Visual Persuasion
(ed. R. Batra), Ann-Arbor Michigan.
Zaltman, J. (2011) Quarterly Trend Reports. Ad Age Insights, Advertising Age. July 25,
2011.

28